Lifthasir, where to begin...
Lifthasir said:
2. Science and technology has moved on inorganic farming. Science and technology and organic - strange mix. Do you mean lab bound scientists have cracked the secret code that thousands of years of agriculture couldn't?
This only confirms you don't know anything about organic farming and are pontification about it without any knowledge.
Lifthasir said:
5. Yields aren't that much smaller? Nonsense - ask any farmer. It's not just the yields, it's the predicatable forecast of yields. We need as close to guaranteed yields as we can to ensure everyone gets fed.
Do you think organic farming is some slapdash affair that relies on luck for yields? And what exactly would qualify a conventional farmer to know anything about organic farming? The average conventional farmer would know as much as you about organic cultivation (which, it is clear to me now, is nothing).
Lifthasir said:
You assume that ALL farm land is perfect for organic farming. It isn't.
One of the main points behind organic cultivation is
improving soil fertility by the addition of organic matter (not necessarily high in nitrogen).
Lifthasir said:
6. Assuming the Wikipedia article is correct and ignoring variations (such as some farms are on such poor land they could never be organic), yields would drop by 20%.
You have quoted only one out of three possible yields mentioned in the same paragraph; which were 100%, 80% and 95-100%.
Lifthasir said:
7. Weed growth - if you have a garden or a lawn you will be familiar with weeds. If you have an allotment, you will know that unless you regularly weed your veggy patch, weeds proliferate and starve crops of essential nutrients. This isn't science - it's everyday fact. If we don't spray land with weedkiller, it has to be weeded by hand. Then there are insects which devour nice fresh crops. Now, the field at the back of me is about 45 acres. Have you any idea how many people and how many days it would take to manually keep the weeds down?
Again I can only resort to suggesting you know nothing about organic practices. As I have mentioned, mulching is an effective form of weed control and is used extensively. Also there are various mechanical and thermal methods of removing weeds; they don't have to be pulled up 'by hand'. It is also important to realise that complete eradication of weeds is not desirable in organic systems, as weeds provide various benefits of their own.
Lifthasir said:
8. You talk about resistant crops. I take it you mean either GM or other scientific strains - both of which go against the 'organic' ethos.
There are no GM strains in organic cultivation, but you are sorely mistaken if you believe that strains produced through the science of plant breeding go against the organic ethos. Science and organic cultivation are not mutually exclusive. Modern organic methods rely heavily on huge advances made in the science of organic cultivation over the past 50 years.
Lifthasir said:
Any crop that 'repels' insects is BAD for the ecosytem - no insects, no birds!
That would only apply in a monoculture. Under organic polyculture (the norm for organic cultivation) some plants may repel certain insects without harming the ecosystem.
Lifthasir said:
These modern 'strains' produce no seed - they are sterile.
Unless you are refering to GM strains which are intentionally sterile, theat is not necessarily true. Some conventionally bred strains are sterile, but that is not the case with most/all strains.
Lifthasir said:
9. If you don't believe that organic fertilizer is poisonous I suggest you either go to a local slurry pit, jump in and start eating, or have a wee on the same square foot of grass for a few days and see what happens to the grass. All fertilizers are bad if used in concentrations. If you put too much manure on land and it washes off into the water course it's still a bad thing.
I know all fertilisers are 'poisonous', but you miss the point of what I was saying. Organic fertilisers are part of the natural nitrogen cycle, synthetic fertilisers are not. Synthetic fertilisers add a huge ammount of nitrogen to a system which is unable to recycle it quickly enough. Organic fertilisers add nothing (although they clearly can be responsible for localised pollution in the same way as synthetic fertilisers).
Pappa